About this Show

FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace

News/Business. (2013) NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre; retired Capt. Mark Kelly; panel discussion with Kevin Madden, Nina Easton, Laura Ingraham and Evan Bayh. (CC) (Stereo)

NETWORK

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Virtual Ch. 760 (FOX NEWS HD)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
1280

PIXEL HEIGHT
720

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Rubio 8, Us 7, Chicago 5, Hagel 5, Chuck Hagel 4, Washington 3, Wayne Lapierre 3, John Mccain 3, James Holmes 3, Pentagon 3, Mr. Lapierre 3, America 2, Dc 2, Minneapolis 2, Iran 2, Atlanta 2, Mark Kelly 2, Bayh 2, Miralax 2, Obama 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  FOX News    FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace    News/Business.  (2013) NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre; retired  
   Capt. Mark Kelly; panel discussion with Kevin Madden, Nina...  

    February 3, 2013
    11:00 - 12:00am PST  

11:00pm
fantastic. what's in the future for you? >> building a gallery in the front of my building and i like to have a place to customers can walk in and purchase things. >> in new orleans, arthel neville, fox news. >> let's do fox fast forward now. look ahead to some the big stories coming up this week. on monday, president obama will visit minnesota to discuss gun safety and to promote his own set of gun control proposals. including a ban on assault weapons and universal background checks for all gun purchases. monday, former new york city mayor ed koch will be laid to rest. coach ran new york for 12 years and saved the city from financial ruin. former president bill clinton will speak at the service and represent the obama administration there also on wednesday, power ball. back again with a massive jackpot after nobody won this
11:01pm
weekend. wednesday's drawing will be for an estimated $2,008,000,000 good luck if you are playing. that is how works reports on this sunday, february 3rd, 2013. so a lot of things to watch out for for this next week. keep it right here on fox news channel. i'm harris faulkner. have a fabulous week. >> there are deep divisions on
11:02pm
capitol hill to prevent mass shootings. well ask two leading advocates to make their cases, husband of former congresswoman gabrielle giffords, mark kelly, and the head of the national rifle association. both on fox news sunday. >> senate republicans go after one of their former colleagues who wants to be defense secretary. >> were you right? yes-or-no answer? >> we will ask if chuck hagel's nomination is in trouble. our power player of the week, a cheerleader for poetry, all, right now, on fox news sunday. hello, again from fox news in washington, dc. president obama travels to minneapolis tomorrow to continue his push for new gun control. saturday, the white house released this picture of the president's shooting at camp david which he does all the
11:03pm
time. the national rifle association is fighting new limits on guns. if the first big legislative battle this year and, today, we will cover it in depth. but, first, retired astronaut, mark kelly, husband of former congresswoman gabrielle giffords, shot two years ago. they have launch add new group "americans for responsible solutions." captain, let's start with your wife's drought testimony before a senate committee this week. >> you must act. be bold. be courageous. americans are counting on you. >>chris: how is your wife doing? >> great, chris. she enjoyed being there in front of the senate. it was a little bit of having
11:04pm
her former job back in a sense, being on capitol hill. >>chris: now, the debate, your wife's shooting raises some of the questions in support of the gun control controversy. loughner was suspended from college because of concerns that he posed a danger to others but he was able to go to a store in tucson, pass a background check and buy the gun he used to shoot your wife. so the question is, what good does it make, do to make more people go through the background checks when loughner was able to pass a background check? >>guest: well, that is a good question. he was clearly mentally ill, the school new it. his parents knew it. he was expelled from the community college because of the mental illness. if his condition was entered into the system, into the criminal background check
11:05pm
system, and he went to do that background check i would assume that he would have been rejected so, in the case of loughner, if arizona would have enteredded 121,000 records they had not entered into the system, if his record was one of those, he probably would have been rejected as just like since 19991.7 million criminals and mentally ill have been rejected when trying to buy a weapon. now, the point we need to make, there was a gun show loophole so in the case of rejection at the gun store he could have gone to a gun show or private seller and gotten a gun. this is, you know, a problem but we can solve it. >>chris: let me ask you about another part of the issue of the debate. loughner shot your wife and all the others at that shopping center that morning with a gun with a magazine that held 33
11:06pm
rounds. if there were a limit on the number of rounds, the president wants it to be ten rounds, what difference would it have made? >>guest: a big difference. as he tries to reload a 33 round magazine for another 33 round magazine, he dropped a magazine. that gave time for a woman named patricia to grab it and time for a couple people to restrain him. if, say, for a second that was a 10-round magazine and the same thing happened. without is had a lot less people shot, a lot less people murdered, and even nine-year-old born on 9/11 did not live to sear her 10th birthday, she would be alive because she was shot with a bullet after round number 13. >>chris: as you know, wayne lapierre will be on the next
11:07pm
segment and he says we had an assault weapons ban for 10 years. it didn't work. >>guest: well, i don't know if it worked or not. i haven't looked at all the statistics. common sense tells me that if it is much more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to get assault weapons and lie-capacity magazines and guns in general, we will save lives. i served in the military for 25 years. i know the value of having an assault weapon. a gun that can kill many people, many quickly. i do not believe the average person on the shoot including criminals and terrorists should have easy access to those weapons. in cases of mass shootings when an assault weapon has been used we know we typically twice the number are shot so more people are died than injureed.
11:08pm
there are already 9,000 federal laws on the books but they are not enforced. >> i agree with mr. lapierre on that point laws that are not enforced. 1.7 million have failed background checks since 1999 and not enough are prosecuted. they should be prosecuted and there should be stiff penalties. at the same time, give those people a second option as to where to go get a gun. right now, that means the private set particular. if we close the loopholes, it would be much more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to get a gun. we know this will be a hard problem to solve. she was someone in congress who worked with republicans and worked across the aisle and that is what we will need to do here today. these are difficult problems. in the united states of america,
11:09pm
we solve difficult problems. we sent men to the moon and built an international space station, we cure diseases, we can fix this. >>chris: the basic argument the n.r.a. makes, they say, and the supreme court has upheld, there is a constitutional right to bear arms and they say government doesn't have the right to say what kind of gun, how big a magazine, according to the n.r.a. that is tyranny. >>guest: i don't agree. i do agree that every american has the right to own a firearm to protect himself, to protect his family, to protect his property. we are both gun owners. i don't think you will find a person that is a stronger supporter of the second amendment than me. i defended the second amendment with my life over iraq and kuwait. in is not about the 2nd amendment this is about public safety. we have 20 first graders die in
11:10pm
class because we do not have sufficient gun violence legislation in the country. in 1934, we band automatic weapons. i would argue that the semi-automatic assault weapon with a high capacity magazine is too dangerous to be on the street where criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill can get them. >>chris: now, the political reality because you and your wife are starting a political group, the president, obviously, is making a public, the mayor bloomberg and a number of other mayors are making a push. political reality: i don't have to tell you the n.r.a. has a lot of clout on capitol hill and the last election cycle, they contributed $20 million to federal campaigns just last year. 50 percent of the members of the new congress have an "a" rating from the n.r.a. so, what do you think you can actually get through congress this year?
11:11pm
>> well, certainly, sitting in front of the senate judiciary committee, i saw on both sides of the aisle that members of the senate of that committee really feel we need to do something. sometimes it wasn't clear that everyone agrees on exactly what needs to be done but i certainly saw that there certainly is a feeling, i believe, that a criminal background check is a necessity to keep criminals, the mentally ill and terrorists from getting weapons. that is very possible to get that done. we are going to work as hard as we can to do whatever we can to get common sense solutions. i think the first thing, along with some help for the mentally ill and dressing the mental illness problem is a universal criminal background check. >>chris: i want to ask you, because you did not mention the assault weapons ban and vice president biden said something
11:12pm
interesting, saying i am much less concerned, quite frankly, about what you scale an assault weapon, than i am about magazines and the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine." has your side already given up on the idea, not whether you think it is right or wrong but whether you think it is politically practical, given up on the idea of banning assault weapons this year? >> first of all, we don't have a side. our organization is supportive of responsible gun owners like ourselves, strong supporters of the second amendment, that is a priority. another priority is to protect americans. there are some common sense things to do. we need to get the records of the mentally ill in the system and the lie capacity magazine issue needs to be addressed because it saves lives and assault weapons, like i said,
11:13pm
chris, i spent 25 years in the military. i know the value of having an assault weapon. it is to kill a lot of people very quickly. they are too readily available. in time we will be able to address those issues. >>chris: finally, with less than a minute less, wayne lapierre will be in the next segment. what do you want do say to him? >> well, certainly he will say that background checks don't work. but that is not true. he will tell thank you in a couple of minutes. since 1999, 1.7 million people were prevented from getting a firearm because they had a criminal record or a history of mental illness. we stopped those people from getting a gun. now we have to make sure they don't have a second objection to get the gun and that is getting a gun from a private seller or the gun show loophole without having a background check. we need to close that loophole. i hope mr. lapierre can think
11:14pm
what the members want. 74 percent think it is reasonable thing to have a background check before buying a gun so what i tell him, is, i hope he would listen to his membership. members of the n.r.a. tend to be very reasonable on this issue. >>chris: captain, thank you for joining us. we wish you and your wife the very bet, sir. >>guest: you are very welcome. thanks for having me on the show. >>chris: the head of the n.r.a., wayne lapierre.
11:15pm
11:16pm
11:17pm
11:18pm
>>chris: mr. lapierre thanks for join us. you heard captain talking about the background checks and since 19991.7 million people have failed background checks and been denied guns. i know you point out criminals the not go through the background checks there are other ways, a black market will be out there to get guns but if 1.7 million people have already been denied guns, doesn't that make people safer? >>guest: i have all the respect in the world for the captain and what happened to his family should never happen to any family. we all want to stop it. let me talk about the proposal of president obama and people like mayor bloomberg are putting forward.
11:19pm
first, your question is, i don't think you can say the 1.7 million people have been stopped from getting a gun because the government did not prosecutor any of them, they let them walk in, they were denied and they walked out. who thinks if they wanted to commit a crime they did not go on and get a gun. >>chris: it seems if 1.7 million were denied, i understand the hardened criminals but the disturbed person, like the james holmes, or atlanta, -- lanza, they are not hardened criminals. >> i have been in the fight for 20 years and we put that on the books of the instant check but i am convinced after fighting to get the mental records computerized for 20 years and watching the mental health lobby and the ama oppose it, i don't think it will happen. the fact is, the check now, the
11:20pm
people --. >>chris: but 1.7 million people were denied. i agree but, but as the captain pointed out, loughner was able to pass the test so there are holes in it but because it is not perfect doesn't mean --. >>guest: the hole is we have been fighting for 20 years to get the records computerized and i know what goes on behind-the-scenes, they will not do it. mental health lobby will not do it. it is not going to happen. i wish it were happen. we are for it but it does not. >>chris: you are for universal background check? >>guest: now that is what president obama now is putting forward. let me talk about that. it's a fraud to call it universal. it is never going to be universal. the criminals are not going do comply. they could care less. you the not computerize the mental health records, so here is what will happen. we ought to quit causing it universal check. the real title is the check on
11:21pm
law abiding people all over this country. and we will talk about how it will work, they will take a failed system. if you are in a nebraska or you are a hunter or ramp and i want to sell you a shotgun, the federal government, we have to go find a dealer or walk into a police station, who will do the check? there will be fees, paperwork, law-abiding people caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare and there will be abuse in terms of prosecution. it is all going to affect only the law-abiding people. the criminal could care less. >>chris: what do you make of the picture of the white house releasing, president obama skeet shooting at camp david and he says he respects hunting. >> he said during the campaign he will not talk away the rifle or handgun, and they had flyers
11:22pm
like this, saying he will protect gun rights and now he is trying to take away all three. >>chris: not taking away shotguns. >>guest: have you looked at the feinstein bill? that is what it does. they will turn the universal, i think, check on the law-abiding into a universal registry of law-abiding people and they do not want that. that is the last thing they want. >>chris: you take something that is here and you say dill go all the way over there, there is no indication. i can understand you saying that is a threat but nothing the administration says indicate they will have a universal registry. >>guest: and obama was not a tax until they needed it to be a tax. i don't think you can trust these people. feinstein has said, they will go door-to-door and pick them up. can i talk about what would
11:23pm
work? >>chris: a couple questions and we will get to it. the murder, today, one of the things that concerns people, each day we talk about a shooting, oftentimes mass shootings, day after day after day, and the frustration is, you don't think that answering or limiting guns has anything to do with it. i understand there are some things you think do work and we will talk about that the murder yesterday of a former navy seal chris kyle, a man who wrote "american sniper" credited with the largest number of confirmed kills of any american soldier ever. he and another man gunned down at a texas gun range. >>guest: if you want to stop violence in the country, here is what you do. first if you want do protect our kids, you put armed security in schools. i am not talking about arming teachers but police officers and certified professional security people. there is not a parent that wants
11:24pm
the kids unprotected. in atlanta this past week, arm securities stopped a shooting in an atlanta school the stopped it. here is the problem, with that, sir, though, if you arm people at schools, a lot of the people are not just motivated to kill people in schools, they want to kill people and if the school is too tough they go do a movie theater like james holmes, or to a shopping center, they will go to a gun range and kill chris kyle. >>guest: so the rest of the it, you fix the mental health system. every police officer knows people on the state that should be institutionalized because we have emptied the institutions. we need foe change our civil commitment laws and change the mental health system and fund it and make it work and get the people into treatment. we are not doing that. i still would like to see the mental health reports computerized but we cannot get
11:25pm
that do. i have a transcript with senator schumer from 20 years ago on "face the nation" i begged him to help us do it and he still haven't done it. the n.r.a. has been fighting to get it done. >>chris: you oppose gun control as a form of government tyranny but in the not hearing this week you offered a different reason. take a listen. >> what people all over the country fear today is being abandoned by their government, if a door made hits, if a hurricane hilts, if a riot occurs, they will be out there alone and the only way they protect themselves in the cold and the dark when they are vulnerable is with a firearm. >>chris: do you really think that is a more serious threat, bands of americans during a tornado, do you think that is more serious threat to the average american than the drumbeat of gun violence? >>guest: we want to stop gun
11:26pm
violence. that is what we are trying to do. here is the threat. there are 25 violent crime as week in this country, we need to take a city like chicago and the public will get it when i say it, chicago is 89 of 90 in the country intels of enforcing the reasonable federal gun laws n.r.a. supports including gangs with guns and drug dealers with guns, the people doing the killing. we are obsessed with the taliban and we ought to be but what about the gangs that are ruining neighborhoods? we need a federal task force if it takes 500 agents, if it takes 1,000 agents, go into chicago. i know holder doesn't want to do it, i gnome rahm -- i know rahm emanuel doesn't want to. he said they are guppies and cannot be concerned with drug dealers with drugs. every gang member on the street of chicago starting tomorrow
11:27pm
morning, pick them up, we have federal law to get them off the street and put them in prison and that would cut crime and we are thought doing that. >>chris: that is a legitimate people and would not have saved the people in colorado or newtown, or in oregon. now, the questions of rights the big victory for the n.r.a. the court affirmed the 2nd amendment, but here is justice scalia writing in the majority opinion. the second amendment conferred a right to keep and bear arms but it was not unlimited. scalia talks in the majority decision about what kinds of weapons people can buy, who can buy them, where they can be carried. the right is not unlimited, sir. >>guest: we have all kinds of reasonable laws right here the n.r.a. supports. if they enforce them in chicago it cuts crime. the basic right is to protect
11:28pm
yourself and the american public wants to be able, semi-automatic technology has been around for 100 years. if you limit the american public's access to semi-automatic technology, you limit their ability to survive. if someone is invading your house, you should not say you should only have five or six shots you ought to have what you need to protect yourself, not what some politician thinks is "reasonable." >>chris: a couple of weeks ago the n.r.a. started running an ad that create as great deal of controversy. here is a clip. >> are the president's kids more important than years? why is high skeptical about putting armed security in our schools? his kids are protected by our tax money. >>chris: do you regret putting up that ad? >> it wasn't picking on the president's kids. the president's kids are safe and we are. >> thankful for it. the point --. >>chris: they face a threat that most children do not face.
11:29pm
>>guest: tell that to the people in newtown. >>chris: do you think the president's children are the same kind of target as every schoolchild in america? that is ridiculous and you know it, sir. >>guest: unfortunately, i think there are parents all over the country that think their kids are entitled to the same amount of protection when they go to school. >>chris: they should have secret service? >>guest: they should have police officers or certified armed security. if something happens the police, despite their good intentions, it takes 15 or 20 minutes to respond. that is too long. certified arm security in schools like --. >>chris: that will not protect them in the shopping mall, in the movie theater on the street. >>guest: which is why we need do everything else, enforce the federal gun laws which we do not do now against gangs with guns and goal listen. in the shadow of where we are sitting right now, gangs are out there in washington, dc, you can
11:30pm
buy drugs, you can buy guns, they are trafficking in 13-year-old girls and --. >>chris: there are lots of problems, but you cannot say that the gangs do caught in commit the mass murders, james holmes was not a member, a point of the ad i want to ask you about you made it a class argument, the rich, elite, they have body guards, they have security and mayor bloomberg has bodyguards. >>chris: you have security. >>guest: sometimes, we -- yeah. >>chris: on capitol hill you have security. today you have security. >>guest: you talk about hypocrisy in the open we have had all kinds of threats. >>chris: does that make you out of touch? >>guest: i don't deny anyone the right to security when they need it. i am saying it is ridiculous for all the elite and all the powerful and privileged, the tie tabs of industry to send their
11:31pm
kids to school with arms security and have access to semi-automatic technology, they have --. chris i don't know anyone that -- my children went to the same school that the obama children went to many years ago and there were no armed security. this idea of elite class is common sense. >>guest: capitol hill are trying to limit the average citizens while they are protected by semi-automatic rifles. >>chris: president obama is making this a big issue and going to minneapolis tomorrow, with mayor bloomberg running an ad during the super bowl in the washington area pointing out in 1989, you supported the universal background. >>guest: we support add check at gun shows.
11:32pm
>>chris: expanded. question, do you think in this environment with this new effort, after newtown you can convince congress not to pact new gun controls? >>guest: the report of the american public sees through this. they want the current laws enforced and they do not want more laws imposed on only what will be the law-abiding and they see this has to do with keeping our kids safe and how much it has to do with a decades-long agenda and drag out the same old gun ban proposals they have been trying for 20 or 30 years and piggy back them on to the tragedy. that is a tragedy. make chicago safe. put federal task governors in this tomorrow morning. >>chris: thank you, and this will be a debate, the first big political debate of the year. thank you, sir. next, chuck hagel stumbles through the senate confirmation. we will ask if the nomination to be the next defense secretary is
11:33pm
with the spark cash card from capital one, olaf gets great rewards for his small business! pizza! [ garth ] olaf's small busins earns 2% cash back on every purchase, ery day! helium delivery. put it on my spark card! [ pop! ] [ garth ] why settle for less? great businesses deserve great rewards! awesome!!! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet?
11:34pm
11:35pm
11:36pm
>> i just receive add note i misspoke about the president's position on containment which, obviously, we don't have a position on containment. to make sure, your correction is clear, you do have a position on containment, and that is that we do not favor containment. >>chris: defense secretary nominee chuck hagel struggling in the senate confirmation hearing, when asked of the united states policy on iran's nuclear program. time now for our sunday group, republican strategist, and radio talk show host, laura ingraham and senator bayh. you have served in the senate
11:37pm
for 12 years, have you ever seen a nominee for a top cabinet post have a worst confirmation hearing? >>guest: he did not bring the a game, probably chuck, first and foremost but it will not matter, he will be confirmed and there is a strong presumption the president gets to choose his own cabinet absent something disqualifying from a personal standpoint, there is nothing like that here. many republicans will vote know, the republicans gets the the key question does someone like a senator decide to filibuster, that will raise the bar, but it will create heartburn although he will be confirmed. the next time, secretary of defense hagel comes before congress, or has a press conference, he needs to bring that a game to bring the confidence. >>chris: should it matter that he did not seem to know the
11:38pm
administration policy? he did not know what his own policy was, he is going to be the head of the pentagon. well it raises questions on shows like this but it will not affect --. >>chris: it would not raise a question in your mind? >>guest: he because not as crisp as he might have been but he misspoke it wasn't as if he projected a real difference on policy with the administration. what matters is how he performs as secretary of state. behalf nature set the bar high and i think chuck hagel will clear that bar. >>chris: laura, during his testimony he did not seem to know or think much about major issues of the pentagon or funding and he calls the iranian government elected? >>guest: the russians and chinese were it will watching how this played out because bill
11:39pm
kristol was right saying it was not second rate performance it could have been the worst performance that ever took place at a confirmation hearing and that is saying something. as the secretary of defense it should not be that you won two purple hearts in battle. his patriotism is not questioned. merit should count. he is going to have to stand up against american military that will be cut back. he has to stand for that and still be able to stand strong. the fact that he did not know where sequester came from he does not realize it came from the budget agreement, that was disturbing. you would expect an aide to him to know the answers to the questions. he seemed completely out of his democratth which was surprising knowing that people like john mccain would be tough. this could not be a surprise to him. i thought it was a shocking
11:40pm
performance. >>chris: and then he had to deal with past remarks such as the 2006 comment that the "jewish lobby" had intimidated people on capitol hill to do "dumb things" which led to this exchange with senator graham. >> give me an example of where we have been intimidated by the israeli and jewish lobby to do something "dumb." regarding the middle east or israel or anyone else. >> i cannot. >>chris: that raises the question, why does president obama want hagel in the pentagon in the first place? >> here is the thing. the stumbling is what we are focusing on, but at look at his worldview, it is the president's worldview we are seeing and the containment exchange was front and center in this. that means we are going to allow possibly a nuclear iran and contain it. we will not prevent it.
11:41pm
people are skeptical about whether the white house is going to use, or keep the military option on the table to prevent a nuclear iran. this goes to the question of does hagel see the military a strong u.s. military as a force for good, for leadership, in this world. you get the sense from this, and from the comments from woodward in the "washington post" and the exchange with obama, he thinks this is a new world leader and we are leading from behind although he did not say that. i add that this comes when panetta is pointing out the threat of the anti-aircraft attack missiles that are coming out of iran that we need to intercept and there is danger if places like that, such as al qaeda expanding and a dangerous world you can put just put a "pause "button on it. >>chris: what is the smart lay for senate republicans?
11:42pm
should they filibuster hagel in we cannot find any history of a top presidential cabinet appointment ever being filibustered. should they try? other just say, you want him, you got him? >> having talked to many folks on capitol hill i expect there is not a very big appetite for filibuster of the i think they are more inclined to use this as a vehicle to argue where they disagree with president obama's national security policy and where they disagree with his foreign policy. that is probably the better play. one of the interesting things here is the point that a lot of folks believe the president gets his nominee but that there were a number of instances where his qualifications, senator hagel's qualifications came into play and it was a very big problem that you have someone who is not even qualified enough to have important and distinct opinions
11:43pm
on very big national security policies so that is something that folks up open capitol hill, again, they will use that as a vehicle and that is a smart political play to litigate the differences they have with the administration. >>chris: we have to take a break but when we come back serious movement on immigration reform. reform. will congress pass anything? i you're suffering from constipation, miralax or metamucil may take days to work. for faster relief, try dulcolac laxative tablets. dulcolac provides gentle relief overnight unlike miralax and metamucil that can take up to 3 days.
11:44pm
dulcolac provides gentle relief overnight thyou eat less...ing weiyou lose weight.et. it's a great plan... until you get hungry. that's the time to take slimful. one tasty 90-calorie slimful and a glass of water satisfies hunger for hours making it easier to eat smaller meals, and resist snacking. your friends might think you found the secret to losing weight. but it's no secret... it's slimful.
11:45pm
eating less is a beautiful thing.
11:46pm
>> if they break the rules and crossed illegally, maybe overstayed their visa. those are the facts but the 11 million men and women are now here. >> if this endeavor becomes a bidding war to see who can come
11:47pm
up with the quickest and cheapest pathway to green card possible, this thing is not going to go well, folks. >> the president and senator rubio leading the discuss on immigration reform. we back with the panel. a bipartisan group of eight senators, four republicans, four democrats, agreed to a statement of principle. not legislation. principles. the 11ment illegals here get legal status immediately. the path to citizenship would be linked to tougher enforcement at the border and in the workplace. laura? reasonable compromise? >> i don't think so. what you are seeing here is the republicans are cautiously optimistic because rubio is up there and who doesn't love rubio if you are conservative. the problem is, we have seen this movie and we know how it ends. with promises of enforcement, all linked to egg and all in one bill the enforcement never
11:48pm
happens and what we know from the democrats, when the states try for enforce their law, the lawsuits are starts and you have partial dream act and they are not thrilled with help forcement. vitter called rubio naive and nuts thinking it can be done in one bill. you have to establish border security first and then the american people are compassionate and then deal with the people, probably more, closer to 18 will in, not 11 million, but that is the number everyone throws around and deal with the people who are here illegally. >>chris: senator bayh, politically that is completely unacceptable to the hispanic community and to president obama. >>guest: that is true but
11:49pm
there is overlapping. democrats want to it from the policy but placate part of our base and the republicans need do this for self preservation. they cannot have a conversation with the single most rapidly growing part of the american electorate unless they address this. the business community believes strongly that resolving this issue is important to growing the economy. this is some reason to believe a consensus can be formed. it may be narrow. the main issue is, what is the administration and the advocates want? do they take martin luther king approach, step-by-step or make compromises or insist on anything and say whether than legislation we would rather have an through midterm? that is the issue. >>chris: you do not think democrats and the presidents would agree that enforcement first, boarder security first? >>guest: it depends on structure.
11:50pm
enforcement, sure, i don't think many democrats or all democrats --. >>chris: do you do that of but move at all? >>guest: the question is the timings the metrix, yes, but not something that says never to the people. there is no practical hope of having some dined of prime minister status. >>chris: you saw the gang of eight and that is only four republican senators, let alone the gulf republican caucus in the senate let alone the house republican majority, what are the chances that republicans would go for something close to what the gang of eight came up with, because one of the key things to point out is under this bill you would get not a path to citizenship but before enforcement you get provisional status which means immediately the 11, whatever million, now i am concerned about that, we will say 11 million for the sake of argument immediately have legal status. >> you are poised for a better
11:51pm
chance at success on the issue than any time previously. one thing that has happened is you do have a sea change among republicans who believe there is an important political ramification. we put that aside and we will not win hispanic voters with one bill. what is very different about this time around when we have had the immigration debate, folks like rubio accept the resolution reservations of folks like senator vitter and understand folks have strong concerns about how we go about endorsement. he is not willing to demonize the critics but looking to them to be part of the solution. that happened and i don't mean this critically against john mccain but when someone disagreed with him he would attack them and he would say, come up with your own bill, and this time this is a greater degree by folks like rubio that want to engage critics as with
11:52pm
conservative talk show hosts and he has engaged people who have been critical. that is the key element whether there is successful. >>chris: do you think particularly the house of representatives republican majority would go along with something like this? >> there are principles if there that folks in the house of representatives majority would agree with and they do recognize this is part of a larger economic argument and only a step in dealing with the political problems we have. >>chris: is this a win-win for the president if he gets comprehensive immigration reform, it is a huge accomplishment and adds to the legacy and if he doesn't republicans are digging into a deeper hole with hispanics? >> everything seems so be a win-win. we cannot lose sight that it is potentially a win for republicans. this >>guest, the outline of the legislation is remarkably
11:53pm
share to 2007 when that sank john mccain's first attempt at the primary. but the difference is a lost election, the fact that republicans get 27 percent of the hispanic vote when they should be getting 40 percent, and you have a very attractive popular conservative leading the charge and there will be conservatives not on the boat but having marco rubio out front on this, that is key and it will, i think, be good for the republican party. >> it is risky for rubio. while he is extremely popular and we all like him, but there is a real divide in the republican party. we have 23 million americans who are unemployed or underemployed. the idea that this is going to be a huge boon to the economy, tell that to the middle class worker in ohio who sees his wages stagnated and other people who have been unemployed for
11:54pm
long periods of time. >> the difficulty for the republican party is there is a discount define primary politics and general election politics and what rubio understands is it doesn't do you good to win a nomination if you have rendered yourself unelect act in the fall. chris do you think republicans will go along with something along these lines? >> i don't unless there is real enforcement and it is verifiable not the appointment of another commission, unless it is real enforcement, it will not work. i don't think it will go through in my view. >>chris: see you next week. check out where our group picks up with the discussion on our website and well post the video before noon eastern time. follow us on twitter. next, our power player of the week.
11:55pm
11:56pm
11:57pm
>> chris: it is common
11:58pm
practice for people to use words. she is our power play player of the week. >> to comfort us when we have losses, to celebrate us our joys and triumphs but also to help us see things differently than we do in our every day life. >> chris: natasha is talking about poetry and the role she says it continues to play. not as accessible as pros. not as immediate as video images. conveying something important, something deeper. >> i now use ink to keep record. >> sometimes our every day speech has a way of saying this is me ands that you and we're different. and i think poetry has a way of saying this is my experience and you can share in it with me. >> truth be told, i do not want to forget anything of my former life. >> she is the nation's 19th poet laureate. working out of the library of congress, her job this year is to spread her love of poetry. >> i actually get inspired.
11:59pm
it helps me to write poems to be here. >> she describes her role as a cheerleader. >> in a former life was a cheerleader. it seemed a natural way for me to think about being excited about being something. being passion nated about something that means a lot to me that i would like to convey to other people. >> her father is white, her mother black. they had to leave mississippi in the 60's to get married. >> how do you think it affected you, the idea that your parents' marriage was a crime? >> well, i think that it created in me a sense of psychological exile. >> and when she was 19, her mother was murdered by her former stepfather. >> that's the moment where i really tried in the language of poetry to make sense of that loss. >> here the dead stand up in stone, white marble on confederate avenue, i stand on ground once hallowed by a web of caves. >> one of the themes of her work is